Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

January 15, 2008
The Grove
1195 E. Main Street

Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in The Grove, 1195 E. Main Street.
Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger were present.
Mayor Morrison presented the annual "State of the City" address.
The minutes of the Executive Session of December 12, 2007, Executive Session of December 17, 2007, Study Session of December 17, 2007, Executive Session of December 18, 2007, and Regular Council Meeting of December 18, 2007 were approved as presented.
Mayor Morrison presented Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison with a plaque of recognition for his 34 years of service to the City of Ashland.

Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg accepted the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the current fiscal year from the Government Finance Officers Association. It was noted this is nineteenth straight year the City has received this award.

1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Will the Council approve the employment contract of Richard Appicello as City Attorney?
3. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application for Stillwater?
4. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application for Ashland Sips, LLC?
5. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application for Cascade Peaks Spirits?
6. Does the Council wish to confirm an appointment by the Mayor for the vacancy on the Conservation Commission for a term ending April 30, 2009?
7. Should Council authorize signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the County of Jackson for "Intergovernmental Cooperation" to provide building inspection services?
8. Shall Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, accept a bid from Johnny Cat, Inc. and award a contract in the amount of $87,406 for construction of the I-5 Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction Project No. 2007-15?
9. Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a public contract with Titan Sales Group for the purchase of a Street Sweeper at a cost of $156,811.00?
Mr. Appicello left the room during the Consent Agenda approval to avoid conflict.

Items #7 and #9 were pulled from the Consent Agenda.

Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1-6 and #8. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.

City Administrator Martha Bennett indicated the Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County needs to be corrected on Page 2, Paragraph 2. She stated the last statement in that paragraph should read "... and violations of State Law and City Ordinances."

Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to approve the Agreement with Jackson County for Intergovernmental Cooperation with the change noted on Page 2 by the City Administrator. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.

Councilor Hardesty requested clarification on the maintenance issues regarding the sweeper and asked if the purchase of the new sweeper could be deferred for one year. Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson stated this sweeper was scheduled to be replaced last year, so it has already been deferred for one year. He added the maintenance issues with this equipment are significant enough that deferment could cost the City more than replacing it.

Councilor Hardesty/Silbiger n/s to approve the public contract greater than $75,000 for the street sweeper. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.

1. After hearing the appeal of the "Meadowbrook Park II at North Mountain" Subdivision for Systems Development Charges (SDC) credit allowance which of the following actions does Council wish to take: 1) Reject the appeal and affirm the staff calculation of SDC credit at $63,075, 2) Grant the appeal and award the SDC credits in a greater amount, 3) Partially grant the appeal by considering other aspects of the developer's improvements that may be eligible for additional credits?
City Engineer Paula Brown noted staff received additional information from the appellant late this afternoon. She stated the intent of the new information is not clear and staff has not had the opportunity to review it. Ms. Brown provided a brief explanation of staff's recommendation and noted Page 4 of the Council Communication details the basis of staff's determination of the credits.

Mayor Morrison questioned if the new information would have a bearing on the SDC credit determination. City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that because the costs that were submitted today are less than what was originally submitted, it would likely result in less credit than what the City has already determined.

Mark Bartholomew/Indicated he represents the appellant. Mr. Bartholomew apologized for the delay in providing staff with the new information and stated the new information bears significantly on the staff report. He commented on qualified public improvements and the two sections of street improvements they feel qualify for SDC credits. Mr. Bartholomew voiced objection to the way the City applied its methodology and stated they believe staff incorrectly multiplied their total costs. He urged the Council to continue this hearing to a subsequent date so that staff can review the updated information provided today.

Bill Reagan/Briefly commented on the new information provided and clarified the portion of improvements that are offsite of the development.

Mr. Bartholomew clarified the Planning Commission's order stated that the developer would be eligible for SDC credits for the extra two feet and this invoice reflects those costs.

Ms. Brown clarified that the information provided today is completely different than what was given before, and some of the information does not apply to the credits they are asking for. She stated she would be happy to work with staff to review the new information and return to Council, but believes that the information provided will result in a smaller SDC credit. Ms. Brown explained that she cannot do a basis of analysis for the additional two foot increment when she doesn't have the information for the entire 24 ft. street, and asked if the Council would request this information from the appellant.

At the City Administrator's request, Mr. Bartholomew agreed to provide this information within the next week. Ms. Bennett clarified the appellant would have the opportunity for oral rebuttal at the continued public hearing.

Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to continue the Public Hearing to the February 19, 2008 City Council Meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.

Terrence Stenson/172 Alida Street/
Provided a copy and an explanation of the information he submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks, National Forests, and Public Lands, concerning a completed Demonstration Project for an area located in Ashland Creek, within Lithia Park.

Glen Ward/537 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Stated he is speaking on behalf of the Ashland Masonic Lodge and expressed concern with the City easement that was established to created a roadway. He stated a separation of elevation has been created on their property and stated the City has not exercised due diligence in making sure their property is protected from the liability that could occur. Mr. Ward stated the fence that was erected is not sufficient and requested the Council direct staff to look at this situation. He stated their hope is that the City will extend the existing fence to better protect the Lodge's members from the unsafe drop in elevation. He added that the City should either correct the problem or indemnify them from liability should an accident occur.

Jackson Cuevas/545 Oak Hill Circle/Commented on the First Annual March to End Homelessness. Mr. Cuevas shared his desire for the City of Ashland to work together to set an example for the rest of the nation and put an end to homelessness.

Council briefly discussed their preferences regarding the order of the remaining agenda items.
1. Does Council approve the staff recommendation on the next steps and the proposed timing for the City to connect to the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie pipeline?
City Engineer Paula Brown presented the staff report and stated staff's recommendation is to continue to pursue the TAP project as shown on the schedule provided in the Council Communication. She clarified these steps include: 1) Booster Pump Station Site Acquisition, 2) Final Design and Cost Benefit Analysis, 3) Permitting, and 5) TAP Intertie Construction. Ms. Brown requested Council approve the first two steps outlined.

Ms. Brown clarified the average costs at this point are $1.50 per household per month and $6.00 per business customer per month. She added individuals who use more water would pay more, and those who use less water would pay less.

Ms. Brown explained that when the City first completed the study, staff indicated the City would need this water by 2016 and this still holds true. However, she noted she has come before the Council many times requested they complete the construction earlier. Ms. Brown acknowledged this is a big step for the City, but stated she has always advocated implementing this process sooner so that this water supply will be available both for emergency use and use during drought years.

Ms. Brown provided further clarification of the two options outlined in the Council Communication. She stated Option 1 has construction beginning in 2010, and Option 2 delays the construction and makes this step contingent on a future council decision.

Councilor Hartzell motioned to direct staff to move forward with the first three steps (Booster Pump Station Site Acquisition, Final Design and Cost Benefit Analysis, and Permitting). Motion died due to lack of second.

Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99 South/Submitted a copy of an article that he wrote for the Daily Tidings in 1995. Mr. Roth stated he has followed this project since the beginning and does not see the need for the TAP Intertie. He stated there is already existing infrastructure that brings TID water into Ashland and questioned if this money would be better spent on a different use.

Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Option #1 as outlined in the Staff Report, to establish the TAP Line as an emergency water supply, and for a future Council to make the decision for the TAP Line to be part of the City's regular supply. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas expressed concern with making expenditures into the future and noted the City has not yet addressed the issue of disposal into Bear Creek. He added that he is concerned the intertie will not be used for emergencies only and is worried that this will result in irresponsible growth. Councilor Hartzell voiced opposition to the motion and stated she is not convinced this water will be needed as soon as indicated and expressed support for conservation measures. Councilor Silbiger stated that establishing a secondary supply source is the responsible path to take and voiced support for the timeline presented. Mayor Morrison stated that if the Council is divided on this issue, they may need to consider an alternative motion or defer this issue to another time. Councilor Chapman voiced support for approving the first two steps at this time. Councilor Hartzell noted the possibility of treating wastewater to drinkable standards and questioned what investment would be necessary to make this possible. Mayor Morrison suggested withdrawing the motion, approving the first two steps outlined by staff, and discussing the additional steps further. Motion was withdrawn.

Councilor Hardesty requested clarification on the permitting. Ms. Brown explained they will know better what permits are necessary and whether they will need to acquire easements once the design is complete. She added staff's recommendation is to move forward with the first two steps.

Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell m/s to approve the current schedule and direct staff to proceed with Step #1: Booster Pump Station Site Acquisition, and Step #2: Final Design and Cost Benefit Analysis. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Silbiger, Hardesty, and Jackson, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.

1. Will Council approve a special contract to expand the existing sanitary sewer service to serve a proposed building at the Willow Wind Educational Facility at 1494 East Main Street located outside the urban growth boundary?
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented the staff report. He stated the Willow Wind Educational Facility is owned by the School District and is located outside the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Olson provided a brief history of the property, which used to operate as a farm. He explained the School District has applied to Jackson County for permission to renovate the barn into a multi-use and performance auditorium building, and they requesting the City expand the existing sewer service from the house to the barn.

Mr. Olson explained the contract presented has been reviewed by the City's Legal Department as well as the School District, and it addresses all of the applicable issues listed under AMC 14.03.031 Option A. He stated that staff has no issues with providing the additional sewer service and stated the service line and the main line are capable of handling the additional flow.

Mr. Olson clarified the sewer charges for the facility are based on actual use. He also clarified the City reviewed the transportation element and submitted a letter of no concern to the County. He added that staff felt the intersection could handle the additional traffic.

Melanie Mindlin/1338 Seena Lane/Stated the barn project has been spearheaded by the Willow Wind community and has been a grass roots effort. She noted they did all of the fundraising for the barn renovation themselves and hopes the Council will support the Willow Wind community and approve the sewer request.

Juli DiChiro/635 Weller Lane/Stated the Willow Wind facility serves both the home-schooled community and a K-8 alternative program. She stated there is no opportunity for these kids to have an assembly space and the primary usage of this facility will be to serve those students. Ms. DiChiro noted the new facility will be open to public use, but the School District will limit this use to numbers that are safe. She stated they do not anticipate much increase on the impact of the sewer system and noted the County's approval is contingent on the City's approval. Ms. DiChiro stated this facility will have a huge impact on the quality of services that are provided to the families and children of Willow Wind and noted the community has worked very hard to fundraise for this renovation.

Lincoln Zeve/555 Ashland Creek Drive/Noted he is on the Willow Wind Barn Committee and has two children enrolled at Willow Wind. He stated the facilities at the school are a bit lacking and this barn project will enable the children to get out of the rain in the winter. He noted they have reached the end of their fundraising efforts and they will be able to move this project forward with some rapidity if they receive Council's approval.

Mark DiRenzo/931 Beswick Way/Stated he is also on the Barn Committee. Mr. DiRenzo stated it has been a long road and this is the last step. He commented on Willow Winds benefits to the community and stated the barn would provide a needed gathering space.

Garry Harris/65 Fair Oaks Drive, Medford/Stated he is also on the Barn Committee and voiced his support for this project.

Councilor Navickas/Silbiger m/s to approve the special contract to expand sewer services to the Willow Wind school property. DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the contract indicates that if there is a change in use, they will have to reapply to the City. Councilor Hartzell expressed concerns with possible increased use in the future. She also expressed concern with possible traffic issues and questioned if the City has the authority to request a guarantee in regards to this issue. Mr. Appicello stated the City could talk to the County about these issues, but noted the property is outside of the City's land use jurisdiction.

Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to amend motion to direct staff to write a letter to the County addressing potential for transportation, bike, and pedestrian impacts from an event center of this nature. Voice Vote: Councilors Chapman, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES. Councilors Navickas, Jackson and Silbiger, NO. Mayor Morrison, NO. Motion failed 4-3.

Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Councilor Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Chapman and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.

Roll Call Vote on Original Motion: Councilors Navickas, Silbiger, Jackson and Hardesty, YES. Councilors Hartzell and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-2.

2. Should the amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff, which implement many of the changes described in Phase 1 of the Siegel report and proposes changes to the city's permitting and appeal procedures be approved?

Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to continue the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to the February 4, 2008 City Council Special Meeting and to leave the record open until that time. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.

2. Is the Council interested in negotiating a cooperative agreement with Jackson County to provide for the voluntary transfer of residential development rights (transferable development credits) from approved Jackson County Measure 49 claims to City of Ashland designated receptor zones?
Item delayed to future meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor

End of Document - Back to Top


Online City Services

Pay your bill & more 
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top